The ABC allows comments on some of our articles, as a space for you to contribute your thoughts about news events and participate in civil conversations about topical issues.

All comments are moderated and we make no guarantees that your contribution will be published.

Reply

Author

Email

Date/Time

03 Aug 2015 8:05:04am

Text

PreviousMessage

You don't have to do any work to convince ordinary non-Muslims that the peaceful Bahai should not be persecuted. That's a first principle in Australia. The people you have to struggle to convince with long arguments are, obviously, the Muslims who persecute the Bahai.

Islamic regimes, everywhere, discriminate against non-Islamic religions. This discrimination is consistent with both Sunni and Shia orthodoxy. You can read it for yourself and see it in practice in any country governed by the Quran. No country governed by Islam has freedom of religion.

Certainly, it is inhumane to persecute the Bahai. But, Ms Woodlock, you neglected to explain why it is “un-Islamic” for regimes governed by Islamic scholars to persecute the Bahai. These scholars are sincere in their deeply held Islamic beliefs.

Would the Bahia be better off if Iran were a liberal secular regime, or if it remained an Islamic theocracy? The Bahai chose to have their world headquarters in the distant, non-Islamic Israel, of all places. Whether or not anyone else recognises Islam as a dangerous cult, the Bahai can certainly recognise these dangers.

Australia has freedom of religion. If Australia were governed by Islamic principles, it would not have freedom of religion. Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Senator Cory Bernadi and Danny Nalliah object to political Islam because Islamic orthodoxy insists on subjugating people with different beliefs. Certainly these people, like the Bahai, can recognise the dangers of Islam as an ideology. These people agree with you that it is wrong for the Islamic regime in Iran to persecute the Bahai but they can explain why, coherently.

None of these people, to my knowledge, have made a death threat to anyone on the basis of their beliefs. None of these people believe in “arresting people for treason” if they are not guilty of treason, or any of the other like absurdities. But do you know how many of these people you misrepresent and smear have been routinely subject to threats to their life for their beliefs? Would you like to hazard a guess as to where these threats come from? Do you think it necessary in a liberal democracy to contain the ideology behind these threats?

“Imagine, for a moment, that Australia took seriously”, as you say, your essay. You propose that criticising the “Cult of Islam” that persecutes the Bahai is morally or practically equivalent to actually supporting the dangerous cult that persecutes the Bahai. Are you trying to convince Australians not to persecute the Bahai? Or are you making an argument to promote Islam? Your byline says you are an academic. May I ask, do you write this essay as an academic or do you have a personal interest in promoting Islam?